What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Pure BS

Sorry. That isn't an argument.

I'll go a step further: SAVIOR COMPLEX. Look it up.

This is one of cinematic Bond's character traits (and weaknesses), going back to Jill Masterson.

If you have a problem with Bond making love with Severine, then how can you accept him sleeping with the mistress of so many villains? Is it that Bond simply likes sloppy seconds? OR...is it something deeper, that he views sex as a means of gaining trust and "saving" the femme fatale? From Jill Masterson to Domino, from Solitaire to May Day, it's been a recurring theme.

It's no different with Severine, though I buy his sexual attraction to her a little more.

Fair comment. I'd love to sit back and just enjoy a Bond film for pure entertainment. The last time I feel EON got close to that was QOS to be honest.

But if you want me to enjoy a casual seduction scene don't tell me 5 minutes beforehand that the girl was a child prostitute. Any normal adult male's response to this titbit of info would not be to strip off and jump in the shower with the lass. Not because it's not the "PC" thing to do but because its totally f****d up.

I mean, just think about it. For a second.

I have to say, it is this element that tipped it over for me. The dialogue scene with Severine is pretty powerful stuff and sticks with you. I’m convinced Fleming’s Bond wouldn’t have acted in this way. And this isn’t something I’ve come to realise over time, it instinctively felt ‘off’ from first viewing.

Severine is pure sass from an aesthetic point of view, but as soon as we meet her, her vulnerability is striking. It’s that vulnerability that plays so well in making her death appear even more tragic - rather than being just another disposable Bond girl.

The problem is it’s playing on the old trope - Connery banging Fearing, or Roger declaring it’s ‘five days to Alaska’, both of which used women in a disposable manner. That I don’t have a problem with, it really is part of the character, but if you take those two instances and preface them with a scene which carries serious emotional heft - a scene that reveals the girl in question had been part of the sex trade since being a child, a woman now living in pure fear, suddenly they’re really unpalatable.

I love the scene as is. Why should Bond be a paragon of civility and tact? He's an aggressive, sexual man. As for her past factoring in? I don't find it an issue from Bond's perspective.

Yes. He’s an aggressive, sexual man, but he also has class. I guess it’s about how each of us view the character on a personal level and how that varies depending on the actor. For me It felt a little off kilter, for Craig’s Bond particularly. Less the actions of a smooth operator, more the actions of a Premier League footballer.

Fair comment. I'd love to sit back and just enjoy a Bond film for pure entertainment. The last time I feel EON got close to that was QOS to be honest.

But if you want me to enjoy a casual seduction scene don't tell me 5 minutes beforehand that the girl was a child prostitute. Any normal adult male's response to this titbit of info would not be to strip off and jump in the shower with the lass. Not because it's not the "PC" thing to do but because its totally f****d up.

I mean, just think about it. For a second.

And we're tiptoeing around the elephant in the room here IMO: She's admitted her damage & vulnerability, he shows up to cuddle, and then she's killed in front of him. Mendes was being insensitive at best, and misogynist at worst. How DARE anyone have anything negative to say about the scene with Pussy in the barn? At least she wasn't used as a sexual dish rag to be tossed away minutes later as a simplistic motivation for self-doubt & revenge. At least when the girls were killed in GF he was unconscious or fighting.... Okay, my rant here is done. ;)

It would be unfortunate if Sévérine's troubled past meant that SHE couldn't choose to make love with Bond or choose him as her savior.

That's clearly how it was presented on screen. Her desire.

Not talking from the character's POV, but from the film-making POV. Its narrative is in question.
Remember in FYEO when Bond said he'd buy her an ice cream?
But TODAY, crossing lines makes a film bold & daring, ya? It made a ton of cash....

I don't see that association with money on this point. It was bold for Skyfall and then Spectre to call attention to human trafficking in the dialog. It was presented as absolutely negative. What happens after is pretty much beyond question to my mind. In the pursuit of justice and genuine lust.

Fair comment. I'd love to sit back and just enjoy a Bond film for pure entertainment. The last time I feel EON got close to that was QOS to be honest.

But if you want me to enjoy a casual seduction scene don't tell me 5 minutes beforehand that the girl was a child prostitute. Any normal adult male's response to this titbit of info would not be to strip off and jump in the shower with the lass. Not because it's not the "PC" thing to do but because its totally f****d up.

I mean, just think about it. For a second.

And we're tiptoeing around the elephant in the room here IMO: She's admitted her damage & vulnerability, he shows up to cuddle, and then she's killed in front of him. Mendes was being insensitive at best, and misogynist at worst. How DARE anyone have anything negative to say about the scene with Pussy in the barn? At least she wasn't used as a sexual dish rag to be tossed away minutes later as a simplistic motivation for self-doubt & revenge. At least when the girls were killed in GF he was unconscious or fighting.... Okay, my rant here is done. ;)

This is a joke, right? OK, perhaps not...

How in the world is that an example of insensitivity? It's an example of a character's (Silva's) evil, ruthless nature. Bond didn't kill her, nor was he responsible for her death. Severine wanted him on board her boat. And, like so many other women in Bond films (Jill, Tilly, Paula, and even Solange and Fields) she is a casualty. Yes, Bond's quip about the wasted glass of Scotch seems insensitive, but even that makes sense, as he's throwing Silva and his men a curve ball, right before taking them out.

If anything, Mendes and DC made a slight mistake in Bond not showing remorse, even for a split second, about her death. Bond showed it upon finding Fields. He should have shown it here, too. However, it could also be argued that Bond shows it beforehand, when aiming at her: he knows she's a dead woman and so does she. Their staredown is more like an unspoken understanding. Remember that her final words to him were, "I'm sorry." But most telling, even before that, is when Bond first sees her, tied up. Notice the slight little bit DC does here with his left hand (@:44). That is the fidgeting of someone who's agitated and trying not to show it--he's wanting to grip something but there's nothing to grip.

@TripAces , that bothers me too (at the time it bothered me greatly); Bond shows nothing when Severine dies. I understand the concept of covering up his emotions and so forth, but it didn’t play that way to me. The way he behaved with Fields, that you mention, or with Solange, were a couple of quiet of Craig’s tenure. As with Connery’s reactions to both Masterson deaths.

The contrast with how Bond treats Solange and his perfunctory bedding of Severine is very apposite. This is not the same character we are watching. Which was really at the heart of my problem with SF. Mendes took something that was building nicely with Craig's Bond and did a uturn down Die Another Day alley. SP was the natural destination for the path Mendes chose in SF. Hoping Fukunaga gets everything back on track.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Pure BS

Sorry. That isn't an argument.

I'll go a step further: SAVIOR COMPLEX. Look it up.

This is one of cinematic Bond's character traits (and weaknesses), going back to Jill Masterson.

If you have a problem with Bond making love with Severine, then how can you accept him sleeping with the mistress of so many villains? Is it that Bond simply likes sloppy seconds? OR...is it something deeper, that he views sex as a means of gaining trust and "saving" the femme fatale? From Jill Masterson to Domino, from Solitaire to May Day, it's been a recurring theme.

It's no different with Severine, though I buy his sexual attraction to her a little more.

You can either read my posts and respond to them or have a conversation with yourself but not both at the same time.

Where have I said I had a problem with Bond bedding Severine? I've repeatedly stated my issue is the way in which Bond responds to what Severine has told him in the casino which is a really powerful and charged scene. What follows just doesn't work in narrative and character terms. It's a bit like one of those Roger segues from dark steely Bond to a moment of slapstick. Except this one is much worse and wrong on so many levels.

You mention the saviour complex but that's really the point isn't it? In what way does Bond stripping off and entering her shower represent his 'saviour' qualities?

And then he just waltzes onto Silva's island with her, knowing he's dropping her in the sh*t. Why does he even do that? Surely there should have been some pretence of him stowing away and sneaking onto the island unseen before being caught. Why does he just brazenly make Severine complicit in his plan and seal her death sentence? Presumably no one knows he is on board apart from Severine? The casual incompetence is something we haven't often seen before in a Bond film.

For me the whole film coasts on lazy tropes. "It's Bond, so he'll bed her" ... but hang on a second in the last film his response to the damaged rape victim was totally different. Oh who cares, it's Bond, if it moves he'll sh*g it. It's like Austin Powers morphed with Black Mirror.

The contrast with how Bond treats Solange and his perfunctory bedding of Severine is very apposite. This is not the same character we are watching. Which was really at the heart of my problem with SF. Mendes took something that was building nicely with Craig's Bond and did a uturn down Die Another Day alley. SP was the natural destination for the path Mendes chose in SF. Hoping Fukunaga gets everything back on track.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Pure BS

Sorry. That isn't an argument.

I'll go a step further: SAVIOR COMPLEX. Look it up.

This is one of cinematic Bond's character traits (and weaknesses), going back to Jill Masterson.

If you have a problem with Bond making love with Severine, then how can you accept him sleeping with the mistress of so many villains? Is it that Bond simply likes sloppy seconds? OR...is it something deeper, that he views sex as a means of gaining trust and "saving" the femme fatale? From Jill Masterson to Domino, from Solitaire to May Day, it's been a recurring theme.

It's no different with Severine, though I buy his sexual attraction to her a little more.

You can either read my posts and respond to them or have a conversation with yourself but not both at the same time.

Where have I said I had a problem with Bond bedding Severine? I've repeatedly stated my issue is the way in which Bond responds to what Severine has told him in the casino which is a really powerful and charged scene. What follows just doesn't work in narrative and character terms. It's a bit like one of those Roger segues from dark steely Bond to a moment of slapstick. Except this one is much worse and wrong on so many levels.

You mention the saviour complex but that's really the point isn't it? In what way does Bond stripping off and entering her shower represent his 'saviour' qualities?

And then he just waltzes onto Silva's island with her, knowing he's dropping her in the sh*t. Why does he even do that? Surely there should have been some pretence of him stowing away and sneaking onto the island unseen before being caught. Why does he just brazenly make Severine complicit in his plan and seal her death sentence? Presumably no one knows he is on board apart from Severine? The casual incompetence is something we haven't often seen before in a Bond film.

For me the whole film coasts on lazy tropes. "It's Bond, so he'll bed her" ... but hang on a second in the last film his response to the damaged rape victim was totally different. Oh who cares, it's Bond, if it moves he'll sh*g it. It's like Austin Powers morphed with Black Mirror.

100% agree. Give me QoS Bond over Skyfall or SPECTRE Bond any day. In QoS Bond really feels similar to Fleming's human Bond, in Mendes' entries he does not.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Bravo!!! Couldn’t have said it better myself!! What she got from Bond is exactly what she needed. And what she wanted really bad. It was signposted from a mile away!!!

The contrast with how Bond treats Solange and his perfunctory bedding of Severine is very apposite. This is not the same character we are watching. Which was really at the heart of my problem with SF. Mendes took something that was building nicely with Craig's Bond and did a uturn down Die Another Day alley. SP was the natural destination for the path Mendes chose in SF. Hoping Fukunaga gets everything back on track.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Pure BS

Sorry. That isn't an argument.

I'll go a step further: SAVIOR COMPLEX. Look it up.

This is one of cinematic Bond's character traits (and weaknesses), going back to Jill Masterson.

If you have a problem with Bond making love with Severine, then how can you accept him sleeping with the mistress of so many villains? Is it that Bond simply likes sloppy seconds? OR...is it something deeper, that he views sex as a means of gaining trust and "saving" the femme fatale? From Jill Masterson to Domino, from Solitaire to May Day, it's been a recurring theme.

It's no different with Severine, though I buy his sexual attraction to her a little more.

You can either read my posts and respond to them or have a conversation with yourself but not both at the same time.

Where have I said I had a problem with Bond bedding Severine? I've repeatedly stated my issue is the way in which Bond responds to what Severine has told him in the casino which is a really powerful and charged scene. What follows just doesn't work in narrative and character terms. It's a bit like one of those Roger segues from dark steely Bond to a moment of slapstick. Except this one is much worse and wrong on so many levels.

You mention the saviour complex but that's really the point isn't it? In what way does Bond stripping off and entering her shower represent his 'saviour' qualities?

And then he just waltzes onto Silva's island with her, knowing he's dropping her in the sh*t. Why does he even do that? Surely there should have been some pretence of him stowing away and sneaking onto the island unseen before being caught. Why does he just brazenly make Severine complicit in his plan and seal her death sentence? Presumably no one knows he is on board apart from Severine? The casual incompetence is something we haven't often seen before in a Bond film.

For me the whole film coasts on lazy tropes. "It's Bond, so he'll bed her" ... but hang on a second in the last film his response to the damaged rape victim was totally different. Oh who cares, it's Bond, if it moves he'll sh*g it. It's like Austin Powers morphed with Black Mirror.

100% agree. Give me QoS Bond over Skyfall or SPECTRE Bond any day. In QoS Bond really feels similar to Fleming's human Bond, in Mendes' entries he does not.

In QOS, he's the Bond I know. In SP, he's the Bond expect in most movies. In SF he's like no Bond I've ever experienced, and it's not Craig's fault. Writing & direction were lacking. Well, they were in SP as well, but at least the tone wasn't so faux serious.

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Pure BS

Sorry. That isn't an argument.

I'll go a step further: SAVIOR COMPLEX. Look it up.

This is one of cinematic Bond's character traits (and weaknesses), going back to Jill Masterson.

If you have a problem with Bond making love with Severine, then how can you accept him sleeping with the mistress of so many villains? Is it that Bond simply likes sloppy seconds? OR...is it something deeper, that he views sex as a means of gaining trust and "saving" the femme fatale? From Jill Masterson to Domino, from Solitaire to May Day, it's been a recurring theme.

It's no different with Severine, though I buy his sexual attraction to her a little more.

You can either read my posts and respond to them or have a conversation with yourself but not both at the same time.

Where have I said I had a problem with Bond bedding Severine? I've repeatedly stated my issue is the way in which Bond responds to what Severine has told him in the casino which is a really powerful and charged scene. What follows just doesn't work in narrative and character terms. It's a bit like one of those Roger segues from dark steely Bond to a moment of slapstick. Except this one is much worse and wrong on so many levels.

You mention the saviour complex but that's really the point isn't it? In what way does Bond stripping off and entering her shower represent his 'saviour' qualities?

And then he just waltzes onto Silva's island with her, knowing he's dropping her in the sh*t. Why does he even do that? Surely there should have been some pretence of him stowing away and sneaking onto the island unseen before being caught. Why does he just brazenly make Severine complicit in his plan and seal her death sentence? Presumably no one knows he is on board apart from Severine? The casual incompetence is something we haven't often seen before in a Bond film.

For me the whole film coasts on lazy tropes. "It's Bond, so he'll bed her" ... but hang on a second in the last film his response to the damaged rape victim was totally different. Oh who cares, it's Bond, if it moves he'll sh*g it. It's like Austin Powers morphed with Black Mirror.

Because Bond has always used sex as a means of gentle persuasion. I gave examples in the earlier post. Severine is not much different from Jill Masterson. Both were "kept women."

In the shower, Bond approaches her from behind and put his arms around her. Here is how a female columnist describes such a hug:

"The Back Hug: When he sneaks up on you and hugs you from behind your back putting his arms around your waist. He could also be kissing your neck. This hug is full of intensity and passion.This hug also shows he has your back in a manner of speaking. He is protective of you and wants you to know you can rely on him."

What I care about is the plausibility of Bond's actions against an understanding we've gained of his personality traits over the decades and the quality of writing and direction.

The scenes I'm flagging just grate and don't convince me.

There was nothing wrong with the shower scene. There was heat between the two the moment they laid eyes on each other in Shanghai, and that continued in the casino. On the surface, her past is a non-issue: she is no longer a child. But on a deeper level, her past allows the scene to work, from a psychological standpoint. What works in the shower scene is that Bond approaches her in a "protective" manner. This is important because she needs to be able to trust him. Both of these people have been using sex (or been used by sex) in abusive ways in their past. In this case, it's not. It's true and tender. It's what she needs: perhaps the first man to ever touch her in the way he does here. And Bond realizes she needs that.

Bravo!!! Couldn’t have said it better myself!! What she got from Bond is exactly what she needed. And what she wanted really bad. It was signposted from a mile away!!!

I’m not sure anyone is arguing it’s not what she wanted/needed, that much was obvious, it was more about how the scene was handled. Switch the roles - Severine entering the shower, rather than Bond - and you immediately give Severine ‘perceived’ control, something narratively more satisfying.

If anything it makes the moment infinitely better. You know Bond is going there for a shag, but rather than him looking like a lusty Premier League footballer, he’s quietly being the dirty old dog, who to Severine is irresistible.

I must admit this thread is an interesting read and I am seeing a variety of opinions. It's given me different thoughts to the scene.

I must say that the reason we will never see a return to the Bond of "old" is for a the variety of reasons on this thread. We saw Connery Bond and Moore Bond bed women and then never mourn their passing. In some cases the women knew they were probably dead for even kissing Bond's lips. Look at what he does with Jill Masterson in Miami. He beds her for no real reason other then he can. Look at Andrea Anders from TMWTGG she gets bedded and again there is no real reason for this to happen.

Bond is a scoundrel and while our older societal values would not bat an eye with this behaviour, today's morals and values this stuff is bound to be questioned. My initial reaction to this scene was that Bond was bedding Severine as a night of passion. Of two wounded souls coming together for a tiny bit of pleasure. They both knew that they faced a monster. When Severine asks "Can you kill him?" Bond smirks and says that's what usually happens. Reminiscent of Domino asking Bond that "no matter what happens tell me that you will kill Largo." In that movie Domino ends up doing the deed.

The crime to me is how little Severine is used in SF. To me she would have been a good person to save. In the end she dies rather unceremoniously. At least this Bond doesn't shack up with an other woman before he moves on to the next. Like the situation with Aki and Kissy.

I must admit this thread is an interesting read and I am seeing a variety of opinions. It's given me different thoughts to the scene.

I must say that the reason we will never see a return to the Bond of "old" is for a the variety of reasons on this thread. We saw Connery Bond and Moore Bond bed women and then never mourn their passing. In some cases the women knew they were probably dead for even kissing Bond's lips. Look at what he does with Jill Masterson in Miami. He beds her for no real reason other then he can. Look at Andrea Anders from TMWTGG she gets bedded and again there is no real reason for this to happen.

Bond is a scoundrel and while our older societal values would not bat an eye with this behaviour, today's morals and values this stuff is bound to be questioned. My initial reaction to this scene was that Bond was bedding Severine as a night of passion. Of two wounded souls coming together for a tiny bit of pleasure. They both knew that they faced a monster. When Severine asks "Can you kill him?" Bond smirks and says that's what usually happens. Reminiscent of Domino asking Bond that "no matter what happens tell me that you will kill Largo." In that movie Domino ends up doing the deed.

The crime to me is how little Severine is used in SF. To me she would have been a good person to save. In the end she dies rather unceremoniously. At least this Bond doesn't shack up with an other woman before he moves on to the next. Like the situation with Aki and Kissy.

I must admit this thread is an interesting read and I am seeing a variety of opinions. It's given me different thoughts to the scene.

I must say that the reason we will never see a return to the Bond of "old" is for a the variety of reasons on this thread. We saw Connery Bond and Moore Bond bed women and then never mourn their passing. In some cases the women knew they were probably dead for even kissing Bond's lips. Look at what he does with Jill Masterson in Miami. He beds her for no real reason other then he can. Look at Andrea Anders from TMWTGG she gets bedded and again there is no real reason for this to happen.

Bond is a scoundrel and while our older societal values would not bat an eye with this behaviour, today's morals and values this stuff is bound to be questioned. My initial reaction to this scene was that Bond was bedding Severine as a night of passion. Of two wounded souls coming together for a tiny bit of pleasure. They both knew that they faced a monster. When Severine asks "Can you kill him?" Bond smirks and says that's what usually happens. Reminiscent of Domino asking Bond that "no matter what happens tell me that you will kill Largo." In that movie Domino ends up doing the deed.

The crime to me is how little Severine is used in SF. To me she would have been a good person to save. In the end she dies rather unceremoniously. At least this Bond doesn't shack up with an other woman before he moves on to the next. Like the situation with Aki and Kissy.

Very well said @thedove. I too find sense in both arguments, but I must say that, on this, I tend to side with @TripAces views. That's not to say that there isn't some validity to @Getafix's points.

The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.